Wait I thought I was on ignore?
Or are you lying about that, too?
MAGA: FBI Reports Largest Spike in Hate Crimes Since 9/11
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Or are you lying about that, too?
I don't think the question of when a life becomes a life that can't be taken is necessarily a religious debate. Its more of a "we are human beings and we live by a set of higher standards" debate.
Murder is illegal whether you're an atheist or a person of faith. The debate is over when does an unborn child have the rights of one that has been born. Just because many of faith side with the unborn does not in itself make this a religious debate.
Where do you get such an anti American idea.
The ideas you use to inform your vote, your morality are not superior to any other Americans. We all have a right to inform our conscience and our vote as we see fit.
By the way the Founders were informed by religious ideals and determined that our country would be best served by allowing everyone to practice their religion as they saw fit. They wanted to make sure the Federal Govt did not pick one religion but they had no problem with the States having ties between Church and state. Many had religions requirements for the oath offfice. Many taught Christianity in public schools.
Many religious people were part of the abolitionist movement.
Martin Luther King was informed by his Christianity.
====
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/geor...ns-the-first-american-liberals_b_2544282.html
...
Applying each of those definitions illustrates my point: liberalism and evangelical Christianity are intimately linked.
Starting with No. 1, Roger Williams was ousted from the Plymouth colony as a heretic, but he took with him the powerful intellectual tradition of the Puritans. At that point in American history, schools were employed in the service of the Protestant ruling group. As I’ve written elsewhere, “Despite its seeming narrowness, education was the Puritans’ great gift to our nation. Puritans, like Jews, cherished learnedness and detested ignorance. They demanded literacy and scholarship in their clergy. Puritan logic was almost Talmudic in its minute weighing of alternatives.” It was this intellectual tradition that Roger Williams applied to his constructs of religious liberty.
How did we get from there to the perceived anti-intellectualism that is often associated with the religious right today? What about intellectual liberty viewed through “the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity”? A core belief of many evangelical Christians is that redemption is freely available through Christ and that it is their duty to spread the good news of that forgiveness through vigorous proselytizing. But many also view it as their duty to share the Gospel by serving as exemplars and by modeling Jesus’s life through humility, care for the needy and the pursuit of justice. I’ve heard this echoed by the Chairman of the Tanenbaum Center of Interreligious Understanding, an evangelical Christian. In his practice, proselytizing is not as much about preaching to others but about being an example through living God’s love. Interestingly, our Chair, a staunch Republican, considers himself a liberal.
Moving on to definition No. 2, American evangelicalism arose in the midst of rapid industrialization that created seismic shifts in the social compact. In light of dramatic inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the relationship of capital to labor became a flashpoint. Concerns about the impact of industrialization on the poor, the aged and the otherwise disenfranchised gave rise to the articulation and pursuit of the Social Gospel. One of the early Christian theologians of the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch, was also a strong advocate of the labor movement. Yes. The labor movement!
This smacks of the “L” word — two “L” words, in fact!
Finally, No. 3: The Social Gospel, embraced by the liberal wing of evangelical Christians, emerged in the early 20th century. Its goal was to bring the Gospel to the whole person, and not just to the spiritual experience of being “born again” in Christ. Confronted with an excess of poverty, alcoholism, illness, inequality, racial tensions, problems faced by immigrants, crime, the evangelical Christian conscience responded with social activism. Many from that community were immersed in the abolition movement, public health measures, the settlement house movement, the establishment of adoption agencies, the temperance movement, improvement of schools, enforced education for the poor, women’s suffrage, among others — and ultimately, the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these movements in the pursuit of social justice required the intervention of government, and this was, in fact, partly driven by the contribution of evangelical Christianity to progressive social causes.
In one of his essays, Paul Toms, a former President of the National Association of Evangelicals, explains the overlap of government, the evangelical Christian community’s social activism and societal ills: “We are concerned with the place of Christians in government, the feeding of the hungry and starving, and the meeting of physical needs. We give attention to the hurts and problems people have, especially those problems that are inadequately handled by government.” He goes on to quote from a pamphlet, Evangelicalism and Social Responsibility, authored by Dr. Vernon Grounds: “Three passions ... have governed my life: The longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.” Toms also quotes Frances Schaeffer, “Christians are not to love their believing brothers to the exclusion of their non-believing fellow men.”
The ideas you use to inform your vote, your morality are not superior to any other Americans. We all have a right to inform our conscience and our vote as we see fit.
By the way the Founders were informed by religious ideals and determined that our country would be best served by allowing everyone to practice their religion as they saw fit. They wanted to make sure the Federal Govt did not pick one religion but they had no problem with the States having ties between Church and state. Many had religions requirements for the oath offfice. Many taught Christianity in public schools.
Many religious people were part of the abolitionist movement.
Martin Luther King was informed by his Christianity.
====
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/geor...ns-the-first-american-liberals_b_2544282.html
...
Applying each of those definitions illustrates my point: liberalism and evangelical Christianity are intimately linked.
Starting with No. 1, Roger Williams was ousted from the Plymouth colony as a heretic, but he took with him the powerful intellectual tradition of the Puritans. At that point in American history, schools were employed in the service of the Protestant ruling group. As I’ve written elsewhere, “Despite its seeming narrowness, education was the Puritans’ great gift to our nation. Puritans, like Jews, cherished learnedness and detested ignorance. They demanded literacy and scholarship in their clergy. Puritan logic was almost Talmudic in its minute weighing of alternatives.” It was this intellectual tradition that Roger Williams applied to his constructs of religious liberty.
How did we get from there to the perceived anti-intellectualism that is often associated with the religious right today? What about intellectual liberty viewed through “the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity”? A core belief of many evangelical Christians is that redemption is freely available through Christ and that it is their duty to spread the good news of that forgiveness through vigorous proselytizing. But many also view it as their duty to share the Gospel by serving as exemplars and by modeling Jesus’s life through humility, care for the needy and the pursuit of justice. I’ve heard this echoed by the Chairman of the Tanenbaum Center of Interreligious Understanding, an evangelical Christian. In his practice, proselytizing is not as much about preaching to others but about being an example through living God’s love. Interestingly, our Chair, a staunch Republican, considers himself a liberal.
Moving on to definition No. 2, American evangelicalism arose in the midst of rapid industrialization that created seismic shifts in the social compact. In light of dramatic inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the relationship of capital to labor became a flashpoint. Concerns about the impact of industrialization on the poor, the aged and the otherwise disenfranchised gave rise to the articulation and pursuit of the Social Gospel. One of the early Christian theologians of the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch, was also a strong advocate of the labor movement. Yes. The labor movement!
This smacks of the “L” word — two “L” words, in fact!
Finally, No. 3: The Social Gospel, embraced by the liberal wing of evangelical Christians, emerged in the early 20th century. Its goal was to bring the Gospel to the whole person, and not just to the spiritual experience of being “born again” in Christ. Confronted with an excess of poverty, alcoholism, illness, inequality, racial tensions, problems faced by immigrants, crime, the evangelical Christian conscience responded with social activism. Many from that community were immersed in the abolition movement, public health measures, the settlement house movement, the establishment of adoption agencies, the temperance movement, improvement of schools, enforced education for the poor, women’s suffrage, among others — and ultimately, the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these movements in the pursuit of social justice required the intervention of government, and this was, in fact, partly driven by the contribution of evangelical Christianity to progressive social causes.
In one of his essays, Paul Toms, a former President of the National Association of Evangelicals, explains the overlap of government, the evangelical Christian community’s social activism and societal ills: “We are concerned with the place of Christians in government, the feeding of the hungry and starving, and the meeting of physical needs. We give attention to the hurts and problems people have, especially those problems that are inadequately handled by government.” He goes on to quote from a pamphlet, Evangelicalism and Social Responsibility, authored by Dr. Vernon Grounds: “Three passions ... have governed my life: The longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.” Toms also quotes Frances Schaeffer, “Christians are not to love their believing brothers to the exclusion of their non-believing fellow men.”
It's philosophical no doubt, Christianity having a hard on due to the immaculate conception. One can parce the ethics of human vs cellular vs embryonic life stages without a ghost in the sky.
Religious or not (although I believe %99 of it is religious), that issue is no one's business other than the woman who is carrying that fetus.
au contraire mon frère
Many states consider it their business to protect the life of a fetus. (so abortion would apparently be an exception)
State Fetal Homicide Laws
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).
Many states consider it their business to protect the life of a fetus. (so abortion would apparently be an exception)
State Fetal Homicide Laws
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).
Last edited:
many states consider smoking weed illegal and put folks in jail for it. states do a lot of stupid things so that shouldn't be the standard. I'm not advocating for abortion, I find it extremely troubling and believe, it's the last resort, but I also very strongly, believe that it is the Mother's Choice and not the state or the government. you can't be against the contraceptives, birth control and sex education and the right to chose at the same time. apparently, the life begins in my balls.
I did not say it was the standard or that makes it controlling.
I was responding to your point about it only being the women's business.
To me this is simple. Lets not hid behind euphemisms like "choice". Let's not pretend the left is taking sort of high road.
You support a women's right to kill a human being before it is born.
I think its barbaric. Your version of a just society allows it . Mine does not.
But... if the majority of our society wishes to allow women to kill their babies... so be it.
I think each state (the relevant society to me) should decide by vote.
I was responding to your point about it only being the women's business.
To me this is simple. Lets not hid behind euphemisms like "choice". Let's not pretend the left is taking sort of high road.
You support a women's right to kill a human being before it is born.
I think its barbaric. Your version of a just society allows it . Mine does not.
But... if the majority of our society wishes to allow women to kill their babies... so be it.
I think each state (the relevant society to me) should decide by vote.
I'm not hiding behind any euphemisms nor I'm taking any high roads. I do support the womesn's right to make the decision as to what is good for them or right for them even when someone like you is looking at it in an absolute and dishonest form. it's not just black or white.